WSJ: Lawyer signed contract to defend DOMA before firm vetted the case

This is the post I was going to publish Friday morning here. I posted on it Alternet instead because Blogger crashed.

One thing I despise about the religious right is how they swoop down on an issue in order to exploit it before all of the facts come in.

They act like a bunch of vultures with crosses stitched in their wings.

A perfect example of this is the recent controversy involving King & Spalding, the law firm which decided not to defend DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) in the courts.

We have heard the constant whining from the religious right about how King & Spalding are cowards for refusing to take the case. We have heard junk from the religious right regarding the supposedly bullying tactics of the Human Rights Campaign in this controversy. However, the following is something we won't hear from the religious right.

According to The Wall Street Journal and The Fulton County Daily Reporter, the lawyer in the center of the controversy, Paul Clement, may have overstepped his bounds in taking the case. He allegedly signed the contract to defend the case before going through proper channels:

Clement has stated that he felt that he had the backing of the firm before he took on the DOMA case. But the Daily Report spoke to two firm lawyers and a third source anonymously who said that the DOMA matter was not fully submitted to King & Spalding's business review committee, a firm requirement, before Clement signed a contract obligating the firm. They said the committee immediately began reviewing the case the day after the firm learned of the contract—and rejected it the next day, according to the Daily Report.

The sources said the firm’s partners were taken by surprise when news broke that Clement had taken the case. “Any matter that is controversial in any way or where there is a discounted rate goes through the business review committee,” one of the sources told the Daily Report, noting that the DOMA engagement was both controversial and had a discounted rate.

The article also said that there was widespread opposition to the case from inside the law firm and that the case didn't fit the law firm's mission.

These facts something to keep in mind as the folks at the National Organization for Marriage, the Family Research Council, etc. will continue to put their own spin on this controversy.

My guess is that the organizations will conveniently ignore these new revelations. I wonder how many times NOM and the Family Research Council will mention this incident as an example of how "homosexuals are trying to silence people" instead of letting everyone of the real story.

After all, why let truth stand in the way of a good fundraising tool?

UPDATE - And now from the Huffington Post comes even more details about the GOP in this matter. Apparently no one knows where the House of Representatives is going to get the money to pay for the DOMA defense. And laws could have been broken because of it:

The House of Representatives has signed a contract to pay a law firm up to $500,000 (and possibly more) to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in federal court. But there's a problem with this arrangement: No one seems to know where that money is going to come from, and at least one lawmaker believes House Republicans may be violating federal law.

 . . .  Rep. Michael Honda (D-Calif.) pressed House General Counsel Kerry Kircher on the matter. Although the contract states that "the General Counsel agrees to pay the Contractor for all contractual services," Kircher said he was told by the House Republican leadership that no funds would come out of the Office of General Counsel's budget for this purpose.

 . . . Dan Strodel, the House's chief administrative officer, is the man who, according to Honda's office, would ultimately write the checks to Brancroft PLLC. But at the hearing, he also said he had no knowledge of where the money would come from.

 . . .Honda believes that Boehner's agreement could be violating the Antideficiency Act, which prohibits "involving the government in any obligation to pay money before funds have been appropriated for that purpose." Knowingly violating the law could lead to being fined or imprisoned. 

 Why doesn't the House of Representatives ask the National Organization for Marriage for the money? I'm sure than an organization which mysteriously goes from having  $500,000 to $10 million in a three-year span has money just laying around.

Hat tip to AmericablogGay for the update.

Know Your LGBT History - MadTV

What a week!

If you all don't know by now, I didn't post anything for 24 hours due to Blogger crashing. I'm glad that at the very least, it happened close to the weekend. Anyhow, I am - and millions of others - are back online.

So without futher ado, here is my regularly scheduled Know Your LGBT History post.

I miss MadTV. At times it was funnier than Saturday Night Live. Then there are times when MadTV just tried too damn hard. Watch these clips and judge for yourself which is funny and which is just plain stupid. Tune in tomorrow for some of the stuff that I wasn't able to post about earlier.









Past Know Your LGBT History Posts:

50 Black lesbians you should know Part 1

I saw this video and I was speechless because it was so good. It's not fancy nor does it involve theatrics. It just presents faces - faces which need to be seen often:

NOM supporting vicious homophobe in NC and other Thursday midday news briefs

Rev. Baity wants to 'Return America'; NOM now helping him find receipt - NOM is now supporting Rev. Ron Baity's "protect marriage" rally in NC and is linking to his "Return America" site. As the link shows, Baity has said that lgbts aren't normal and is promoting homosexuality in schools. Now wouldn't those comments contradict the following comments by NOM's Maggie Gallagher during a recent Congressional hearing when she said she thinks its unfortunate that people misinterpret things she says as a condemnation of "gay people" and their parenting skills." I guess the actions of her group aren't included in that sadness about "misinterpretation."

Poll: 75% of New Yorkers support either full marriage or civil unions (i.e. oppose typical 'protect marriage' mindset) - Meanwhile a so-called morality group in New York blatantly lie about a poll.


Newt Gingrich And The Dominionists - I wouldn't vote for Newt Gingrich for President even if it would keep the world from catching on fire. All I would is pass out the s'mores.


Delaware governor signs civil unions bill into law for gay, lesbian couples beginning in 2012 - Not bad. It's a start.

Let's all join together to keep tabs on NOM's lies

Maggie Gallagher of NOM

The National Organization for Marriage consistently talks about how the organization is working to "protect marriage" and how to "traditional marriage" isn't bigotry.

One wonders if Maggie Gallagher and Brian Brown of NOM took classes from political pollster and consultant Frank Luntz in terms of how they stay on that message even the face of the fact that the message is a complete dodge.

You have to give them props for that.

However, that's all you can give them props for. In terms of integrity and truth, one almost wishes that there was a grade lower than "F" to give the organization.

So I have decided to do something as a way to remind folks of the emptiness of NOM's message.

I am keeping tabs on just how often the group and its members contradicts its claim of simply "protecting marriage."

To me, NOM's actions are bigotry, but it goes farther than that.  If you took a look at NOM's past actions, you would find that the organization  has been engaging in extremely un-Christian tactics in order to gain success for its endeavors. Granted, nothing illegal has been going on (at least as far as I know) but NOM's actions belie the organization's claim that it's simply an innocent group protecting marriage:

• The latest questionable action comes courtesy of Jeremy Hooper. On it's blog, NOM is implying that a random reader of the Minnesota's Star Tribune wrote a letter to the editor the state's marriage amendment. However, as Hooper details, the man - William LeMire - isn't necessarily random.

• Then there are the recent developments in New York with NOM's anti-gay marriage commercial using refuted information.

• NOM's supporting of a poll in the very homophobic World Net Daily, a publication which also pushes birther claims regarding President Obama.

• Then there is Maggie Gallagher's awful appearance at a Congressional hearing on "protecting marriage" where she contradicted her past statements against the lgbt community and same-sex households.

• How NOM pushed the propaganda of a known Massachusetts hate group in Maryland.

• And last but least, the organization's attempts to ignore state disclosure laws, resulting in several investigations into its finances.

The list isn't complete yet. But like that old saying goes - "it ain't, but it's gonna be."

After all, NOM gives us so much to work with.

Got tips? Send them to charlekenghis@aol.com

Defending traditional marriage certainly isn't bigotry but demonizing the lgbt community to defend traditional marriage IS bigotry. And lying to defend traditional marriage is even worse.


Some information for this post is taken from NOM Exposed and Equality Matters 

You can become fans of their facebook pages here and here.

Religious right raising money for alleged lawbreaker and other Wednesday midday news briefs

$30K Raised For Man Charged With Assisting Lisa Miller - Really not a surprise. I have no doubt $30,000 is there and I have no doubt that more is forthcoming. But I do doubt the notion that a lot of this money, if not all of it, was sent it by folks concerned about this man's well-being. My guess is that the same folks involved with keeping Janet Jenkins away from her daughter are the same folks footing the bill here.

Former MI Asst. AG: I'm A Victim Of A 'Homosexual Activist Agenda' - Right. It has nothing to do with how you stalked the young man in question.

Presbyterian Church votes to allow gay ordination - This is good news indeed!

Navy revokes guidance on same-sex marriages - Ugh. For one brief shining moment, it was Camelot. This is why voting is important folks. The religious right still has enough sway in Congress to buffalo stuff like this.

West Bend School Board refuses to sanction Gay-Straight Alliance - Sue, sue, sue!

I feel sorry for NOM and the 'defenders of marriage'

Make no mistake about it. The National Organization for Marriage knows that its New York ad against gay marriage is peddling the distortion that:

Massachusetts schools teach second graders that boys can marry other boys.

This of course is an alteration of NOM's original claim that learning about gay marriage is a part of kindergarten curriculum in Massachusetts.

We know this is a lie because:

1. The site Politifact exposed it as untrue,

2. Maggie Gallagher of NOM unsuccessfully tried to refute the claim during an interview. She finally asked the interviewer to ask NOM's president Brian Brown about the claim.

A third reason doesn't necessarily come from NOM but someone they worked with in defeating the progression of gay marriage in Maine.

Marc Mutty, chairman of Yes on 1, said the following about the usage of hyperbole about school curriculum in an upcoming documentary on the vote:



Transcript:

We use a lot of hyperbole and I think that's always dangerous," says Mutty during a Yes on 1 strategy session, at the time on leave from his job as public affairs director for the Roman Catholic Diocese of Maine.

"You know, we say things like 'Teachers will be forced to (teach same-sex marriage in schools)!' " he continues. "Well, that's not a completely accurate statement and we all know it isn't, you know?"

"No," interjects a woman off-camera. "We don't say that."

"Let's look back at our ads and see what we say," Mutty persists. "And I think we use hyperbole to the point where, you know, it's like 'Geez!' "

Later, Mutty tried to recant his statement, but he danced around what he originally said about hyperbole.

No matter how angry I get when the lgbt community is slandered by people like Maggie Gallagher, Brian Brown, and NOM; no matter how many lies are told on us by organizations like the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, no matter how many times elected officials who are supposed to look after our best interests kick us aside, I wouldn't trade places with these folks for anything in the world.

I sometimes feel sorry for them for so many reasons.

One reason is that they delude themselves into thinking that their efforts can somehow stop marriage equality permanently. The reality is that every victory they get is a mere postponement of the inevitabilty of marriage equality. The polls are on our side, the momentum is on our side, and most importantly, the youth of America (who will make up the next voting generation) are on our side. And you can only postpone the inevitable, but you can never stop it from happening.

The second reason is their ability to turn their backs on their own integrity. Mutty is a prime example of that. His admittance that he knew what they were lyng in Maine is sad. It probably wouldn't be if Mutty and his ilk could find a verse in the Bible which condones lying and bearing false witness in the name of God. Unfortunately for them, such a verse doesn't exist.

The third reason is that these folks have to look at themselves in the mirror after knowing what they have done.

And if when they look in the mirror, they fail to realize just how much their behavior and their lies trivializes their religious beliefs, morals, and values - well that would be reason number four that I pity them.

Related posts: 

NOM exploiting children to stop gay marriage in New York

NOM brags about NY finances, but omits questionable history of bad ethics

NOM's passive/aggressive exploitation of its supporters